UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

if it were a missle, wouldn't it have a bit more of an explosion. it looks more like a lot of debris when it finally crashes, and i've never seen a
glowing missle either. i don't really know, just some thoughts.

went back and watched the show explaining it and that actually makes a lot of sense. i take back the above statement.

if it were a missle, wouldn't it have a bit more of an explosion. it looks more like a lot of debris when it finally crashes, and i've never seen a
glowing missle either. i don't really know, just some thoughts.

If it was a rocket test then they wouldn't put a warhead on it , the explosion would have been caused by the rocket fuel .
As for the glow check out the video I posted Here

yeah i think you
for sure got this one right. pretty crazy looking when you first look at it though.

We can make some physics-based armchair observations about this video to determine what it isn’t. It isn’t a missile or conventional aircraft and
it isn’t entirely out of control.
The structural integrity of that object would have to be super strong for a missile or aircraft to survive that first impact, and they ain’t made
that way. Missiles and aircraft are made as lightweight as possible. They don’t bounce off of the ground, so scratch that possibility. It is
fantasy.
We can plainly see in the initial seconds of the video that the craft makes some effort to alter its downward slant as it nears the ground. A
missile or a plane could do that, of course, but they have been eliminated as possibilities. What we see is an object that seems to be under partial
control.
That low angle of attack is not that of a free-falling body. Certainly it cannot be a meteorite or space junk moving at that relatively slow
velocity. We must suppose there is some force keeping the thing almost airborne as shown by the attempt to alter its downward slant at near the final
seconds. And that assumption is buttressed by the visual evidence that the craft is not out of control by tumbling or erratic motions at any point in
its decent either before and especially after that bounce. Finally, it does not seem to lose much if any velocity as it bounces off of the ground.
Without a doubt virtually anything we can think of would have lost power and disintegrated at that point. It did not, it gave every appearance of
trying to still recover.
What we seem to know about UFOs? UFOs don’t seem to “fly.” They give every indication that they avoid, repel or eliminate mass in some
fashion. With this object, it is difficult to understand how it remains stable and initially can bounce of the ground relatively unscathed. How can
anything do that? The answer may be that with the first and even second contact with the desert, that its bulk was partially shielded such that the
structural stresses of the contact were greatly reduced and this allowed it to almost recover. Yes, to literally bounce off the ground. Yet, its
altitude control system was failing or had failed and its aerodynamic shape was not enough to provide sufficient lift to keep it airborne. After the
first ground strike, anything not powered in some fashion could not have maintained the long arch of its gradual descent again to the ground. In
fact, it almost seemed to have won its battle with the ground. I maintain that long arch also speaks of an internal power supply that negating the
pure forces of gravity to some extent and provide it a bit longer life than nature would allow, thus, defying our expectations of what we witness.
If that seems a rather wild and bizarre explanation, I need to point out that the Mexican crash of 1974 and the secondary (near) Roswell crash of 1947
both gave indications that UFOs are tough hombres, in that they can sustain mid-air collisions with small aircraft with only minor physical damage
and/or cannot be totally destroyed when striking the ground, leaving skid marks etc.
I have not claimed that the craft was alien. However, given that the camera work is highly professional and the taken in the desert, there is little
doubt but what was recorded wa a test of a UFO-type craft. And I don’t see how anyone can deny that the US government has been working on
developing our own versions since day one of our recognition that those were mighty strange craft flitting around in our air and how nifty it would be
to have our own.

Originally posted by maryhinge
...and i would think a missile would explode on impact

Would it?

Don't you think it could skip off of the ground, like a rock on water (similar to the small-scale rocket test that the TV show Fact or Fiction
did).

I suppose I don't know enough about missiles to say that they would always explode, rather than skip off of the ground. It seems to ma that at the
proper angle, it just may be able to structurally survive a glancing impact and skip -- that is if it didn't explode. I suppose if the fuel tank
ruptured, then it could explode.

edit on 4/24/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Okay the video was taken at a missle testing range, that should be your first clue. Start the video at 7:00 and explain what is so obviously different
than the "ufo" video in the OP.

I dont know why your asking gortex to do a side by side of the videos, they do that in this video which makes me wonder if you even watched it?? That
doesn't matter, I would like to hear your opinion on this.

they dont use the same angle,if they did then it would
be more believable but we will never know

Obviously, the angle of the object in the OP is moving at the correct angle and speed that would allow it to skip (considering that it did in fact
skip).

The question then becomes: what is structurally able to withstand the impact then skip (because obviously the object withstood the impact and
skipped). Maybe it wasn't your normal "rocket", but I would think there are plenty of man-made things that could survive the initial impact mostly
intact, then skip.

edit on 4/24/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Ya know, I hate being a skeptic, because I so strongly believe that aliens are here, and elsewhere in the universe. But Soylent Green's post made me
think. What was the government looking into in the late 90s in terms of "the next big thing" in aircraft? This was post-F-117 stealth, and before the
F-22. Lifting Bodies. Small, fast, wingless aircraft that were powered by ram or scramjets, that were to have a top speed that could outstrip the
SR-71, and a top ceiling higher than the X-15. They were the grandfathers of today's theorized "space planes." The idea, in a nutshell, was that the
body of the plane itself was so aerodynamic that it didn't need wings to propel it. No wings = no wings shearing off during atmospheric exit and
re-entry and high level flight. They built them fairly strong--so it's conceivable this was a failed test of one such aircraft. Especially
considering, also in the late 90s, whenever someone wanted to do a test of a black box project, but not on one of the "traditional" black box sites,
they went to an abandoned missile range...
However, as The Flash said, the explosion still bears questioning, because that is a mysterious enigma. And personally, I can't stand ForF...they do
some interesting stuff with ghosts, but as for UFOs, they hardly research or properly test anything--in this case for example, when they tested the
hoax theory, their "explosion" was a stationary cache of pyrotechnics, which, while it exploded in the proper pattern as the original video, was not
moving like in the original video. As you can see, this video is being taken at a 90 degree angle from some motion, be it out the side of a car
window, or whatever. The point I'm making is that, upon explosion, the explosion itself follows the motion of the car, as would be expected with an
object plowing into the ground at a high speed. ForF's explosion, being stationary, would simply have disappeared to the rear in such a
scenario.

Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as
was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?

Here's a better question. Why assume it a missile or a UFO or, for that matter, a rocket propelled aardvark? Why not shut the door on this video
without requiring what it will never be able to give us...an answer and closure?

Have you ever seen that vid of a UFO on 911? It's the one where people are in an air cart...those cart type things that they use for ski hills...ect
so u can ride up....chair lift, whateva thier called...lol anyways...it's a disc shaped object that flies fast into frame and does a turn around and
just as fast as it was there it rockets off just as fast?

That disc looks just like this one....I would definitely say Military experimental or launch gone bad....

Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as
was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?

Maybe something more like an alcohol-based propellant, rather than the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mixture used by the main external tank of the
shuttle.

When liquid hydrogen is burned (such as by the shuttle's main engines) a lot of water is created (H + O [in combustion] = H2O. Most of the
"smoke" you see on a shuttle launch is condensed water vapor, like in a normal cloud.

Alcohol-based propellants, on the other hand, burn mostly invisible. The sparks could have been caused by the debris from the craft itself.

Here is a very good article UFO's will crash and some backgound
info on the video and history etc and that is had been analyzed, "it is quite clear the UFO is spinning around and around on its own axis (not a
cruise missile)".

As per all video's they all pretty useless, erm yup its blip erm yup its a ufo something.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.